Big Corp. (BC) is in the business of making and selling plastic products. Dominant and
Micro both buy plastic products of similar grade and quality regularly from BC.
Dominant is the biggest customer of BC while Micro usually buys very small
quantities. Due to an unexpected shortfall of raw materials, BC anticipates significant
reduction in plastic production at its plants. In order to maintain supply of plastic
products to Dominant, BC quotes a 40 percent higher price for its products to Micro.
Will this amount to a violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act?
A. Yes, because BC is committing primary level price discrimination.
B. No, because Dominant deserves the preferential treatment.
C. Yes, because BC is adversely affecting competition at its customer’s level.
D. No, because BC has not made any sales at higher prices to Micro.
Amy is hired by BigMart as a cashier. At the time of hiring, Amy is required to sign an
arbitration agreement under which she agreed to settle any and all claims she might
have relating to her employment by final and binding arbitration before a neutral
arbitrator and in accordance with BigMart’s “Dispute Resolution Rules and Procedures”
which is a separate ten-page document containing complex procedural details. Under
the agreement, Amy is required to pay for all arbitration-related costs, and BigMart can
still sue Amy in civil court for claims arising from her employment. A court will most
likely view this agreement as:
A. unenforceable since it is a quasi-contract.
B. enforceable because it is an arbitration agreement.
C. unconscionable because it is an adhesion contract that is oppressive.
D. enforceable because it is part of a valid employment agreement.